Ultra 9 285 vs Phenom II X3 N830
Primary details
Comparing Phenom II X3 N830 and Core Ultra 9 285 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2704 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | 3x AMD Phenom II | no data |
| Power efficiency | 1.89 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Champlain (2010−2011) | Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) |
| Release date | 12 May 2010 (14 years ago) | January 2025 |
Detailed specifications
Phenom II X3 N830 and Core Ultra 9 285 basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.
| Physical cores | 3 (Tri-Core) | 24 (Tetracosa-Core) |
| Threads | 3 | 24 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 2.5 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.1 GHz | 5.6 GHz |
| Bus rate | 3600 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | no data | 112 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1.5 MB | 3 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | no data | 36 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 3 nm |
| Die size | no data | 243 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | no data | 17,800 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Phenom II X3 N830 and Core Ultra 9 285 compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
| Number of CPUs in a configuration | no data | 1 |
| Socket | S1 | 1851 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 125 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Phenom II X3 N830 and Core Ultra 9 285. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | 86x MMX(+), 3DNow!(+), SSE(1,2,3,4A),-64, AMD-V | no data |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| vPro | no data | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| TSX | - | + |
Security technologies
Phenom II X3 N830 and Core Ultra 9 285 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Phenom II X3 N830 and Core Ultra 9 285 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Phenom II X3 N830 and Core Ultra 9 285. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR5 Depends on motherboard |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Arc Xe2 Graphics 64EU |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Phenom II X3 N830 and Core Ultra 9 285.
| PCIe version | no data | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 20 |
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 3 | 24 |
| Threads | 3 | 24 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 3 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 125 Watt |
Phenom II X3 N830 has 257.1% lower power consumption.
Ultra 9 285, on the other hand, has 700% more physical cores and 700% more threads, and a 1400% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Phenom II X3 N830 and Core Ultra 9 285. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that Phenom II X3 N830 is a notebook processor while Core Ultra 9 285 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Phenom II X3 N830 and Core Ultra 9 285, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar processor comparisons
We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.
